Comments on: What you talkin’ ’bout Willis?

By: Jones

Jones — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:07:00 +0000

These are all great points, but I have reservations about viewing the university as a place to solely promote learning and exploration. Just imagine how many generations of students came before us. If the university promoted learning and exploration by giving-up its turn-style qualities there would be no room for us. I would love to stay here until I grow old and senile, learning and exploring (I truly would, and am not being facetious), but I know this is not practical. To some extent, the university must act to boot us out, ready-made to offer our services to a hungry economic system.

By: crocus

crocus — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:35:48 +0000

I personally think the “turn style” format that universities can have is one cause of bad teaching. A lot of time in academia is spent doing research and not learning how to properly communicate that research. Perhaps along with fostering critical thinking skills and exposing students to a diverse range of topics, university education should also cover communication and teaching skills. This would ensure that all doctoral students who intend to transition from student to professor will be able to inspire their future students as well.

By: merle

merle — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:43:57 +0000

Parasite Kid comment also highlights another important point: If we tend to seek confirmation of our interests/beliefs by selecting the courses we take at the university and if these interests/beliefs did not arise ex nihilo, but have their own history in our past, then I think it highlights the necessity of trying to implement some of the changes David Orr was talking about at a much earlier state in the educational process. Also, this strategy has a practical advantage: in institutions preceding the university, there is already a tradition of having mandatory courses for every student. Adding courses on ecological awareness or adding content to already existing courses would be easier (not easy) at that level than at the university (and it would reach more people).

On the subject of using an appropriate language to talk about global environmental issues, I agree with Crocus and David Orr that it is a very important issue, but I think we must also acknowledge that there really are â€œdoom and gloomâ€ authors out there. So the question is, I think, what can we make not to be associated with them when we are reporting a bad news? Since the public often already do not understand the subtleties of scientific debates and given also that media emphases everything that is sensational, this might prove very hard to do. Since a population believing a “doom and gloom” scenario can deny it, think “it is anyway to late to do anything” or even ask for drastic ‘authoritarian’ measures (the kind of measures analogous to the ones which restrict individual freedom/rights in the name of national security), I think this is a very serious question that has received too little attention.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:13:59 +0000

Parasite Kid makes two interesting and necessary point here: 1) the need for good teaching (as well as new topics to teach), and 2) the need to reform the way in which we view university and its role or purpose. Too many people seem to view the academic institution as a trade school, as a place to endure for a set number of years in order to guarantee a high-paying job. Like Parasite Kid says, it should instead be a place that “promotes learning and exploration.” Jokes about going further in a field that will allow us to get “real” jobs become exasperating quickly, because the people who mouth them are missing the point. Universities are about promoting the passion for learning in general – ecologically and otherwise. The education reforms that Orr proposed should at the very least start on more general terms.

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:42:40 +0000

I agree, we tend to gravitate towards our interests. But how do we form these interests? I think most of us can relate it back to a certain professor, experience, or group that captivated us. As I see it, this relies on both the type of experience and the exposure to the experience. I say this to highlight 2 things â€“ the importance of teaching style on influencing the next generation and the need to shift how we see the university experience; from one that emphasizes a speedy transition, to one that promotes exploration and learning. Given the exposure to captivating instruction in both economics and ecology shouldnâ€t future generations have more understanding of different disciplines? And doesnâ€t this have the potential to facilitate the cross-disciplinary dialogue we seek?